Snapped Shot

Welcome, Spectator readers and fellow Melanie Phillips fans!

For more information about the references she makes here, please see my followup article. And, if you like what you see here, feel free to subscribe to my feed—I'd love to hear what you think of the craziness that goes on over on this silly website. And if you ever see anything else that looks odd, be sure to let me know about it. We love covering photojournalism over here. One frame at a time!

Final Update on Tank Round: The mystery of the fired round is solved, courtesy "Faux" News?

I'm not sure what my Lightstalking friends are going to think about that little twist, but this is pretty convincing evidence.

I still think the questions regarding what he was doing there and what exactly the IDF was firing at need to be addressed, but this definitely seems to answer any controversy surrounding the circumstances of his death, as the other videos answered the controversy surrounding the "strange" sequence of the wire photos.

As always, I'd love to hear what you think.

Interjection: I think the question that forest asks of our Lightstalkers is important enough to highlight here. He asks, to wit:—

The discussion at Lightstalkers is pretty interesting. I wonder if there could ever be a situation where some of those people would consider that a journalist might have been a bit too chummy with terrorists? Or may actually be a terrorist armed with a camera instead of a gun? I think it's a mindset where advocacy journalism is accepted in place of old fashioned journalistic standards of impartiality.

If they want to advocate, they should get out of professional journalism and start a blog or something.

The highlighted portion is particularly interesting. After all, if professional journalists "embed" themselves with terrorist forces that in the best cases wear no formal uniform—and in the worst, play "dress up"—should we really be surprised if they are eventually mistaken as being a terrorist? Continue reading »

Once again, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine illustrates how to properly dress for a funeral. A topic that we see again and again.

(h/t SoccerDad)

The terrorists responsible for the attempted poisoning of an Israeli restaurant this past week were previously pardoned by Israel, according to WND:

The terrorist cell that planned to poison an Israeli restaurant this month was led by jihadists who were recently granted amnesty by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, WND has learned.

The pardoned terrorists, members of Fatah's Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, were directly involved in orchestrating the foiled attack, according to defense sources. They were granted amnesty in October as a stated Israeli gesture to help bolster Palestinian Authority President and Fatah Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

The terrorists were given amnesty on condition they disarm, refrain from attacks and spend three months in PA detention facilities and another three months confined to Nablus, the northern West Bank city in which they reside.

Yet more proof that all of the "caring" and "compassion" in the world will never solve the terrorism problem.

(h/t Mount Athos)

Somebody over at the Associated Press has been watching too many westerns:

Smoke rises over buildings following an Israeli air strike on a building near Nahal Oz crossing east of Gaza City, Wednesday, April 9, 2008. Palestinian militants from the Gaza Strip burst into southern Israel on Wednesday and killed two Israeli civilians in a daring daylight raid that threatened to set off a new round of fighting. (AP Photo/Adel Hana)

A "daring" daylight raid?

A "daring" daylight raid that killed two Israeli civilians?

One would think that the vaunted AP Stylebook would have a paragraph or two on avoiding language that is loaded and emotional when referring to "news" events.

But then again, one would also think that the Associated Press was actually interested in reporting the news.

You can view the rest of this photo series over here. More on the terror attack here and here.

Normally, when I see pictures of jackbooted thugs in the Middle East, the subject in question is the IDF. Imagine my surprise when, upon reading the caption to this photo, I discover that it's of Palestinian security forces.

I think I'm going to have to go get more coffee after seeing that one. That's more to ponder than I was looking for!

(h/t Soccer Dad)

It doesn't get any cuter than this, folks.

Once again, a shining example of proper parenting, courtesy your friendly terrorist neighbors.

This is actually pretty funny:

A Palestinian protester uses a sling against Israeli soldiers while eating an ice-cream during a protest opposed to Israel's security fence in the West Bank village of Bilin April 4, 2008. REUTERS/Baz Ratner (WEST BANK)

Another version of the same caption reads [Ed.:—The photo has been refiled, so the original caption is no longer available at this link.]:

A Palestinian protester eats an ice-cream and uses a sling shot at Israeli soldiers during a protest against Israel's security fence in the West Bank village of Bilin April 4, 2008. REUTERS/Baz Ratner (WEST BANK)

No matter which way you slice it, I'm definitely chuckling over here. Probably not what that "protester"-slash-anarchist intended, but well worth it nonetheless.

For more on the weekly circus that is Bilin, be sure to check out this video.

Curses, beaten to it by 30 minutes!

Another shot, courtesy friend of Snapped Shot Muhammed Muheisen. I like Muhammed's version better.

... by openly admitting that they are biased in their coverage of events in the Middle East.

On the one hand, I always approve of our news agencies acting transparently and admitting things honestly. Yet, on the other, I'm not so sure that our media should really be in the business of "making a difference."

After all, isn't the standard-issue excuse we have gotten for the past 30 years of media anti-Westernism that somehow, they must "remain impartial" when reporting events, so as to be able to tell the story "from a neutral viewpoint?"

Yeah. "Neutral" works just fine for them, so long as you define it to mean "supporting terrorism."

See The Elder's coverage for details. Money quote:

Can you imagine a statement from any international agency professing support for the "Zionist cause" the way that these supposedly objective journalists explicitly support the "Palestinian cause?"

This article should be printed out and stapled up on the wall of every editorial desk in the world. (h/t insty)

Or, at the very least, write it on their bathroom mirrors:

But it does mean that of all the causes the world could have adopted, the Palestinians' deserved to be near the bottom and the Tibetans' near the top. This is especially so since the Palestinians could have had a state of their own from 1947 on, and they have caused great suffering in the world, while the far more persecuted Tibetans have been characterized by a morally rigorous doctrine of nonviolence.

So, the question is, why? Why have the Palestinians received such undeserved attention and support, and the far more aggrieved and persecuted and moral Tibetans given virtually no support or attention?

Click on over for the rest of this truly thought-provoking analysis of the canted priorities placed on these two countries by our news services.

And if an editor just happens to be walking by when you read it, be sure to tape a copy of it to the back of their shirt as they do.

For the laughs, of course.

Update: A sensible, if somewhat firm reply from BtB.

The wire services are afloat in pictures of the stereotypical Palestinian "youths" (i.e., what are in most cases 25-year-old men who look suspiciously like "militants"), hurling stones and other random objects at Israeli police forces.

As many times as this exact picture has been taken, it's amazing that someone at the editorial desk still thinks it's news.

AP-Friendly Roundup: youths, youths, youths, youths, youths, youths, youths, youths, youths, youths, youths.

Just ran across a familiar face in the wire archives—The gentleman in these two photographs seems to have a knack for showing up at the front of funerals for Islamic Jihad terrorists "Activists."

5 March 2008—Palestinians shout during the funeral of Islamic Jihad militant Yosuf al-Samera in the central Gaza Strip March 5, 2008. Al-Samera was killed by Israeli forces late on Tuesday, medical workers said. REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa (GAZA) (Second angle from Khalil Hamra/AP.)

16 March 2008—A Palestinian shouts as he helps to carry the body of Islamic Jihad militant Mohammed al-Shair during his funeral in the southern Gaza Strip March 16, 2008. Al-Shair was among three Palestinian militants killed by Israel's air force's missile strike in the northern Gaza Strip on Saturday, hospital officials said. REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa (GAZA)

Same photographer. Same subject. And I haven't even gone back more than a month in the photo archives.

Could this be this yet another case where the wire services selectively ignore the insincerity of the subject's repetitive emotions, and try to present him to the reader as if he has something legitimate to say?

I'd show you the pictures here, but you know the deal. Be sure to click on the links up above while you can.

Update: Okay, I guess this means it's my turn to borrow a page from CJ's Playbook:

I can't see any other purpose in publishing this picture, other than to try and inflame the passions of the perpetually-inflamed Islamic world.

Is this photo newsworthy?

Is the selective angle and cropping of this photograph, which leads the reader to the impression that Israel is "calling" for the expulsion of Arabs—and by inference, the Dome of the Rock—from Jerusalem, helpful towards a peaceful dialogue in the Middle East?

Personally, I think the answer to both questions is a very resounding "No."

Notice that even the AP photo of the same sign makes it obvious that we're looking at a lone protester, and not some official Israeli government position.

Once again, Reuters has decided that its main purpose in life is to act as a propagandist for the Islamic terrorists throughout the world.

Too bad it can't be bothered to tell the news with as much vigour.

Captainfish sent along a very interesting scoop yesterday, of some pictures that purported to show some Palestinian children playing in the rubble of an Israeli-bombed building. As Cap'n points out, the ground in this picture shows a mound of dirt around and over the rubble that is starting to grow grass.

I don't know about y'all, but whenever I try to repair the bald spots in Ye Olde Backyard, I've noticed that it takes a lot longer than 6 days to grow.

Of course, in the interest of fairness, the caption on the photo reads:

Palestinian children play on the ruins of a building destroyed in a recent Israeli air strike, in Rafah refugee camp, southern Gaza Strip, Monday, March 10, 2008. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has instructed the army to halt air strikes and raids into the Gaza Strip following a recent drop in rocket fire from the territory, officials in his office said Monday. (AP Photo/Eyad Baba)

By using the generic "recent," there's no way we can determine exactly when the building in question was "renovated." Of course, this works both ways—On the one hand, we can't say for certain that the AP is claiming that the building was bombed within the past week. But, on the other hand, we also can't be certain that it was bombed recently, rather than in the more distant past.

Could go either way, but I'm not sure there's much to raise a stink about, given the evidence I've seen so far. I'll see if I can find the same rubble in the other wire service archives, and see if any of their captions make more specific claims. I'll be updating this article if I run across anything interesting.

Those of you who've been reading this blog for a long time might recall a similar story of "repurposed ruin" from back during the Israel/Hezbullah war of 2006. My commentary back then would still apply in this case, I think.

In an unrelated note, all I can say to this picture is, "Awesome!"

Sometimes, the surroundings of a photograph speak volumes about the "message" that a photojournalist is trying to convey to his readers. For instance, framing a group of people behind a police barrier conveys the message that, somehow, the subjects in the picture are being "oppressed" by a particular police force, even though other photographs in the same series show very clearly that the police barriers are not intended to surround the people pictured.

Here's another interesting case of selective framing, courtesy Kevin Frayer of the-wire-service-that-hates-me. I'll refer you over here for the picture, but allow me to "paint words" with the caption, if I may—and if you have problems with it, Counselor, you know the drill:

Palestinian Muslim women stand under a Christian mural as they look on, during the funeral of four Palestinian militants in the West Bank town of Bethlehem, Thursday, March 13, 2008. The militant Islamic Jihad group in Gaza fired more than a dozen rockets at southern Israel early Thursday after Israeli undercover forces killed one of its West Bank leaders in a raid in the West Bank town of Bethlehem. The attacks shattered a recent lull in Gaza fighting and highlighted the fragility of efforts to move Israel and Gaza's Islamic Hamas rulers toward an informal truce. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer)

Continue reading »